Mediaboss Marketing

The goal is to remove what critics of the criminal justice system call an unfair disadvantage for poor people and people of color, who reportedly pay disproportionately higher amounts for bail.

Nationally, African American men pay 35 percent higher money bail amounts than white men, and Hispanic men pay 19 percent higher money bail amounts than white men, part of the Harris-Paul bill reads. The individuals who would be exempt from bail are described as low-risk individuals awaiting criminal trials.

The bill continues:

Money bail systems have resulted in disparate harms to poor people and communities of 12 color. Studies have shown that African American 13 and Hispanic defendants are more likely to be detained pretrial than white defendants and less likely to be able to post money bail so they can be released. Moreover, race and money bail amounts are significantly correlated.

The concern is that individuals earning lower wages are not able to pay bail, which could result in them losing their jobs, having their cars towed, and possibly losing their children.

Critics and opponents of the legislation include bail bonds companies and public safety organizations.

Harris, in a written statement announcing the bill, reportedlysaid, In our country, whether you stay in jail or not is wholly determined by whether youre wealthy or not and thats wrong. We must come together to reform a bail system that is discriminatory, wasteful, and fails to keep our communities safe.

Americans deserve fair and equal treatment under the law regardless of how much money is in their pockets or how many connections they have, Paul said, according to theSan Francisco Chronicle.

According toBay Area public radio station KQED, Harris and Pauls bill estimates that 450,000 people are incarcerated in the U.S. without having been convicted of a crime, and while awaiting trial.

The bill seeks to distribute$10 million between stateand tribal court systems in order to replace the use of bail with risk-based decision making that includes objective, research-based, and locally-validated assessment tools that do not result in unwarranted disparities.

In April, Duane Dog Chapman, known for his show Dog the Bounty Hunter appeared in the Assembly Public Safety Committee hearing to testify against similar legislation.

Adelle Nazarian is a politics and national security reporter for Breitbart News. Follow her onFacebookandTwitter.

P.S. DO YOU WANT MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS ONE DELIVERED RIGHT TO YOUR INBOX?SIGN UP FOR THE DAILY BREITBART NEWSLETTER.

Read more:
Rand Paul Teams Up With Kamala Harris for Bail Reform - Breitbart News

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) came to President Donald Trumps defense on Thursday.

In an interview in theNew York TimesWednesday, Trump told the paper he would not have hired Jeff Sessions as attorney general if he knew that Sessions would ultimately recuse himself from the Department of Justices Russia investigation.

You know, I think the President has a point, because the thing here isif everybody is going to recuse themselves just for incidental contact, I think you dont get really good governance, Paulsaid in an interview on Fox and Friends, the Presidents favored morning news show. I believe that Jeff Sessions contact with the Russians was incidental. In the usual duties of being in Senate, and it being incidental, he should have stayed in the fray and been more supportive of the President.

Paulwent on to rail against Sessions for his actions enforcing asset forfeiture policy, which he says gives the attorney general the power to disproportionately take property from minority and low-income people.

I think we shouldnt take peoples property without conviction. This is something I believe very strongly in, and Im disappointed that Sessions is going after a lot of poor minorities to take their property without due process, he said.

Read more here:
Rand Paul Agrees With Trump: Sessions Shouldn't Have Recused Himself - TPM

Ralph Northam and Ed Gillespie won their parties respective primaries in June and are campaigning fiercely to be Virginias next governor. But theyre not the only candidates in the race.

The Libertarian Party of Virginia hosted a special convention in May and nominated Cliff Hyra, a 34-year-old patent attorney who lives in Mechanicsville with his wife and three children. After meeting the states petition requirements, Hyra recently officially announced his candidacy and will be a third option on the ballot in November.

AltDaily had the chance to ask him a few questions by phone.

AltDaily: Youve said you became a Libertarian in college. Can you elaborate on that?

Cliff Hyra: Sure. I guess when I was a kid I considered myself a Democrat, but I just started to be exposed to more of the idea of freedom. I started reading a little bit of [Friedrich] Hayek and [Ayn] Rand and [Milton] Friedmanstarted to get interested in the idea that even if you disagree with what somebodys doing, it may be better if everybody leaves each other alone, as long as theyre not harming anybody. So that began my journey to Libertarianism, and I think it crystallized for me in law school. I went to George Mason, and its known for its economics and maybe more Libertarian bent. I had some excellent professors like Don Boudreaux and Tyler Cowen, who are pretty well-known Libertarian thinkers, and I think they added to that idea of personal freedom and libertythe idea that Libertarianism really has a lot of solutions to real-world problems. The evidence shows that Libertarian economic solutions are very successful. So since then, Ive been voting Libertarian for my entire adult life.

And youve got a ready response for anyone who points out that you dont have any legislative experience?

Yes. About a quarter of sitting governors havent held any prior elected office, so its not unusual to go straight into the state executive position without previous political experience. Im a business owner and life-long resident of Virginia. Im a family man. I have three children and another one on the wayso Im very familiar with the problems that people face here in Virginia.

Ralph Northam and Ed Gillespie have raised more than $11 million combined. Whats your strategy for competing against the major parties?

You know, you can do very well working with a smaller budget. Its all about getting your message out there, so any way that we can do that: traveling around the state and meeting with different groups, trying to do as much media as possible, targeted ad spending.

Fundamentally, its about the ideas. Even in the last presidential election, when ideas got people really excitedeither in a positive or a negative waythey really got a lot of exposure, even without spending a lot of money. That race was quite different than this one, but even so, theres a lot of opportunities when youre pushing ideas that people are interested in.

Whats the status of you getting into any of the planned debates?

I have not been invited to any of the debates Theyve said, Well, these are our standards for getting in, but theyre quite subjective.

Ive heard that Ralph Northam claims that hes open to my participation in the debates. Ed Gillespies camp, theyve stated that theyre not open to it. Im not sure, really, what theyre afraid of, but I think people would really be well-served by participation of a third party.

Ive listened a lot to what the other candidates have said, and too much of what theyre talking about is just political gotchatrying to score points on the other side. Even looking at their websites, they have a lot of nice goal statements, but they dont really talk much about how to get there. I think it would be great for me to be in the debate and forcing the other candidates to respond to some of these policy proposals and say where they stand. At this stage, we havent seen any evidence that were going to get that. Were certainly working with the debate sponsors and the other candidates to do everything we can to get in the debates, but we havent seen much positive progress so far.

You grew up in northern Virginia, you went to college at Virginia Tech, and you live outside Richmond now. It seems like you could draw support from a lot of parts of the state. Im wondering: How well do you know Hampton Roads, and do you have any campaign stops planned here?

Hampton Roads is one of the first places that I visited after I announced that I was planning to run, and I visited with several groups down there. Ive never lived there or worked there, but I know a lot of people down there, and I certainly plan to come back again and again over the course of the campaign and get to know as many people and voters groups down there as I can.

Every locality has their own issues. As Ive learned down in Hampton Roads, you guys dont like tolls too much! I think there was one specific project that was handled very poorly. In other areas of the state, theyve been handled a little bit better, and theyve worked out much betterespecially some of the HOT lanes that run between northern Virginia and closer to where I am nowtheyve been really successful. Each area has its unique issues, and Im certainly committed to getting out to every location in the state and addressing the peoples concerns.

One of the tenets of your campaign is civility and respect. I wonder if you could say at least one positive thing about your opponents?

I think that Northamhes making some of the right noises about drug legalization. For example, hes come out in favor of decriminalization of marijuana. Im certainly partial to that. On Gillespies side, hes come out and recognized that theres a need for tax reform in the statethat we have a really absurd state income tax. Its never been cut; the brackets havent been adjusted in over 50 years. He recognizes theres something to be done there. I think both of them fall short on their ideas in both areas. I would go much further than them in both cases.

Its very easy for me, honestly, as a Libertarian, to look at good things on each side because Im not really a left-right kind of guy. I recognize that theres good ideas on both sides, and thats one of the advantages that I would have as a governor: the ability to pick and choose the right solutions from either side of the aisle and work with whoever I need to to get that done without the worry that I have to satisfy other people in my party.

I see a lot of positive positions on both the left and the right. Im not interested so much in partisanship, but just really arriving at the right answer and looking at what people have done in other states, trying to be more innovative and adopting some of the best practices that have already been found to work. We could have the same good results here in Virginia if there was the political will for it.

You and your wife are expecting your fourth child in August. How does she feel about you campaigning with a newborn baby in your lives?

Well, that was the first thing I did when considering runningwas talk to her about what she thought. She was all in favor of it. Shes always been very supportive of everything that Ive done, and shes really amazing and a wonderful wife. When I started my law practice, she was very supportive of that, and we were just expecting our first child at the time. It was really as the recession was just getting started. I had planned it ahead of that, and then the economy kept getting worse and worse. She said, No problem. I have confidence in you. Go out and do it. And I did. Thats the wonderful thing about her. Shes really strong. Shes great with the kids, and we have a lot of family close by. Im sure it wont be the easiest thing weve ever done, but if you dont challenge yourself, you dont grow.

You just announced your candidacy in the last two weeks. Youve got about 1,200 likes on Facebook and $28,000 in the bank. If we talk again in October, where do you think youll beor where do you hope to be with your campaign?

The skys the limit. Im running the campaign to win it. I think thats importantthat you set out with that goal in mind. Realistically, I understand that the chances of that are low. At the same time, weve seen how things can snowball. Again, even with the election last year: very unexpected, very surprising. Never say never.

If its not the year that happens, another great thing would be if we could hit 10 percent vote mark, which it looked like Rob Sarvis was going to hit for a while back in 2013 and got pretty close to it. If we can build on some of that momentum, hit that 10 percent markthats kind of the magic number for the Libertarian Partythat would give us automatic ballot access as a major party for the next four years.

That would be really good both for Libertarians, of course, but also for the people of Virginia. Theres a lot of racesespecially at the state levelthat are uncontested. I think at least 70 percent of races are uncontested, so you dont even have a choice. Wed love to field candidates in all those races and give people a choice, an alternative, but because we dont have the automatic ballot access, its really difficult to get on the ballot. We have to get so many petitions signed and so forth. So that would be a major milestone if we could reach that 10 percent level of support.

Even if the level of support isnt that high, if I can affect the debate, if I can force the other candidates to talk about some of these issues that I think are really important and that they seem to be shying away from, thatll be a success as well.

Im hoping that we do talk againmaybe in a couple monthsand we can focus more on the issues. For now, maybe you could summarize your ideas on tax reform?

Sure. As I was mentioning, Virginias taxes are really unusual. We hit our top rate at only $17,000 of income per year, so somebody whos making $30,000 in Virginia is paying more than double the state income tax that someone would pay in California. Californias, of course, well known as one of the highest tax states in the nation, if not the highest. My proposal would be to exempt the first $60,000 of household income from the state income tax. Thats $3,000 back in the pockets of the average family each year. The average family would pay no state income tax. Of course, people could do so much with that money, investing in themselves, their children, their businesses, their futures. Thats the crux of that.

Some of the other reforms Im talking about help to deal with the fiscal impact, although the fiscal impact of that cut is really muted compared to the positive impact on peoples lives because its well-targeted at the people who are paying the most disproportionate amount under the current tax system.

How does that work mathematically to be revenue-neutral? Do you tax higher incomes at a higher rate?

Im not proposing increasing any taxes. Im proposing to pay for the cut out of spending. Theres a lot of low-hanging fruit in Virginia where were spending money, and were really not getting anything back in return.

One of the issues that I like to talk about a lot is criminal justice. Elsewhere in the country, drug arrests are going down a lot, along with violent crimes and property crimes. Here in Virginia, weve had the same thing: Violent and property crimes have been going down, which is wonderful, but drug arrests have been going the opposite direction; theyve been going way up. Theyve about doubled in the last 15 years, to the point where were arresting about 3,000 Virginians for drug crimes each year60 percent of them for marijuana, 80 percent of those for just possession. It costs quite a lot of money just in direct costsover $25,000 a yearto incarcerate one person. This is for something that is legal in 29 other states and the District of Columbia. It has a really disproportionate impact on some of the African-American, disadvantaged communities here in Virginia.

We would actually be better off taking that money and setting it on firebecause at least we wouldnt be making things worse. Its not only not benefiting us in any way, its actually making things worse. Youre taking people away from their families and from their jobs, so the total impact on the economy is actually much greater than that. Thats something that we can cut, and not only will it not harm anybody, but actually by cuttingby decriminalizing marijuana and hopefully legalizing itwe can generate additional tax revenue. We can make peoples lives better.

Theres a lot of areas we can cut without having to make a cut to state services, just by making the state government more innovative, more inclusive, and focusing on those areas where its benefiting all Virginians and having respect for them and leaving them to make their own decisions, make their own choices in their own lives, as long as theyre not hurting anybody else.

What else do you want people to know about you?

One of the other issues that Im pushing is school choice. Were widely recognized to have one of the very worst charter school systems in the entire country. We recently had a bill vetoed in May that would have been a real good start there. I think there are some other states where weve seen tremendous progress. We can have the same benefits here in Virginia if we had the political willif we had the right person in the governors office.

And also healthcare. Theres a limit to what we can do here in Virginia, but we can start by introducing more choice, more competition, getting rid of bad regulations. We can increase access and reduce costs.

If anybodys interested in the ideas that Im putting forward, I would encourage them to learn more at my website: CliffHyra.com. They can sign up for the email newsletter. They can check out some of my upcoming events on Facebook. I hope to meet everybody out on the campaign trail in the coming days.

comments

Jim Roberts lives in Norfolk with his wife and two children. He grew up in Virginia Beach, earned degrees at Virginia Tech and William and Mary, and works in corporate communications at Huntington Ingalls Industries.

Read more:
Release the Hyra: Libertarian Party Candidate Is Challenging ... - AltDaily

By JASON DUBROW July 20. 2017 9:38PM Libertarian candidate Jason Dubrow takes a question during an interview at the New Hampshire Union Leader on June 28, 2017.(DAVID LANE/UNION LEADER) I am Jason Dubrow, a computer engineer living in Dunbarton with my wife, Rebecca, and two children Cassiopeia (7), and Callisto (15 months). Rebecca and I maintain a small farm with chickens, gardens, and a number of beehives. We installed solar panels many years ago to offset our carbon footprint.

New Hampshire has the fifth highest electric rate in the country, the highest in New England. Neighboring states with high electric subsidies, yield higher wholesale rates, in addition to higher property taxes on power generation plants are major culprits for our high electricity costs. I will address high property taxes, which are passed on to the rate payer to lower electric rates. The high cost of electricity is a deterrent to bring new businesses from out of state. If this does not change, our economic growth will stagnate.

Every child should have access to a diverse network of educational opportunities to meet the demands of the 21st century. We continue to educate our children with a one size fits all system. Without a competitive, diverse system of education, our children are left behind. We need more opportunities for our children in New Hampshire regardless of their socioeconomic class to meet the 21st century needs and challenges they face. I will work to open the doors to ensure all children, especially to ensure low income, are not limited to a single option for their education.

Concord uses the same tried and failed methods of solving the drug crisis. We are not winning this battle. We need to follow Portugals lead and decriminalize all drugs. I will work to ensure money targeted for rehabilitation of drug addicts is used for that purpose rather than failed policies such as policing or life support for addicts.

Our state needs new ideas, not a swinging pendulum of the old tired two-party system. And we wonder why government is unable to solve real problems? The Libertarian Party has a wide range of new ideas that will end the duopoly in Concord and force a tripartisan, innovative solution to the problems that face our state. I will work to ensure we keep New Hampshire TRI-partisanship alive with new ideas.

As John Adams once said, Government is instituted for the common good: for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people. And not to profit.

Yours in liberty.

Jason Dubrow of Dunbarton is the Libertarian nominee for state Senate District 16.

State Government State Guest Commentary

Read the rest here:
Dist. 16 election: Libertarian Jason Dubrow, in his own words - The Union Leader

You may have heard the name Austin Petersen before, but if you havent youre probably going to soon. Hes a libertarian activist who has identified himself as an atheist and he recently announced hes running for Senate as a Republican.

Petersen is probably most well known for being the runner-up for the Libertarian Partys nomination for President of the United States in 2016, losing only to Gary Johnson. Earlier this month, however, he said hes running for Senate in Missouri as a Republican (despite his lack of faith).

I interviewed Petersen to ask him about how he plans to court evangelical republicans as a non-believer, his views on separation of church and state, and his move to distance himself from the word atheism.

McAfee: You are a non-believer, which makes you rare in U.S. politics and even rarer in the Republican party. Do you ever worry about surveys that show many Americans wont vote for atheists because of negative stigma attached to non-belief (they think were immoral even compared to rapists)? Some polls, like this one, give us hope but still paint a bleak picture.

Petersen: For the record, I am agnostic I claim neither faith nor disbelief in God. When it comes to Gods existence, I dont know. But to answer your question, yes, the surveys worry me. That said, I refuse to lie to people just to get them to like, or hopefully vote for, me. It seems unfair to ask someone to put me into a position of public trust by betraying that trust. Whats more, even though I make no claim to know about the existence of God, I share a great deal in common with people of faith. I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of religion, and will support peoples right to practice the faith of their choosing without interference. I also share a belief that life begins with conception and ends with natural death, that life trumps choice and that all lives at all stages have a right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

McAfee: Interesting. You have repeatedly identified as an atheist (that means you dont actively believe not that you KNOW there is no god). Are you saying that label no longer applies?

Petersen: Its a good question. Ive often conflated the two terms in the past, so Im happy to clarify now. Im an agnostic. I dont actively believe in God, but Im open to the possibility that he may exist. Ultimately, I dont think you can really know either way. What I do know, however, is that its the duty of the government and the duty of its leaders to protect the right of an individual to believe and practice as he or she sees fit.

McAfee: Do you think a lot of fundamentally religious people will vote for you, despite your public atheism, or that youll have to capture more of the less devout voters? Im sure you are aware of the stereotypes about atheists, including that we are actually Satanists, so feel free to address those.

Petersen: I think theyll vote for me. First, because they have before and second, because theyre telling me they will again. The fact is, much of my support base comes from conservative Christians. They generally say they support me because they prefer an honest agnostic to a dishonest believer. Also, the election of Donald Trump indicates that people are less interested in electing a man of the cloth than they are a man of the people.

There are atheists and agnostics that dont care for me much because my beliefs conflict with their own. Thats okay. Ultimately, I will defend the rights of everyone, regardless of whether they have faith or not. Conservative Christians know this because I have demonstrated it publicly and laid my reputation on the line by defending their religious liberty in public debates and forums.

McAfee: Like you, Im an agnostic atheist. In other words, I dont claim to know if any gods exist and I dont actively believe in any. Do you think its a closed-minded position for anyone, believers and atheists alike, to proclaim they know with certainty?

Petersen: Just to be clear, I dont claim to know if God exists and I dont actively believe in Him but I dont actively disbelieve in Him either I just dont know. Thats the honest truth of it. We all could claim closed-mindedness toward those that dont think like we do. But ultimately, like Thomas Jefferson said, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. What does pick my pocket? Government.

McAfee: You say you are an atheist who is pro-life, and thats great, but you have also said women have a choice as to whether or not they get pregnant. Do you legitimately believe that pregnancy is always a choice?

Petersen: One hundred percent of the time? No. But that is such an infinitesimally small amount of the overall abortions that its frequently used to then justify all other abortions. Even pro-choice Governor Gary Johnson signed a bill that banned partial-birth abortions in New Mexico, so at some point we must admit we are dehumanizing the unborn. It is a human. Do all humans deserve the same rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Absolutely. If we found a cluster of cells on Mars, scientists would say thats evidence of life. So then why is the unborn cluster of human cells not?

McAfee: On that same subject: Youve said you would be an elected official who would fight for pro-life issues, and you defined abortion as murder in the same sentence. That mentality could set the U.S. back to the 1950s in terms of health care, and could be seen as an overreach of governmental authority. As a former libertarian and current republican, how can you justify that government interference?

Petersen: Current libertarian, current Republican. If government is to exist, it must be limited to securing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without life, there is no liberty. How can humanity become a galactic civilization, reaching to the stars to expand and grow, if we do not respect the evolutionary processes of the continuation of our species? If we are not pro-life as a culture and a people, then what is the opposite? If there is no afterlife, then this life is the most precious thing we have. How can we deny to others the lives that we now live? How can we not grant the gift of life to those millions of potential humans who could become scientists, doctors and lawyers?

McAfee: Religious freedom laws have been very controversial, and I loved your question to Gary Johnson on whether a Jewish baker should be forced to bake a cake for a Nazi. To follow on that, can you clarify your beliefs here? Do you, for instance, believe a white baker should be able to reject the business of a black man because of his racial differences?

Petersen: I believe any person should be able to refuse to hand over their private property to anyone for any reason. That being said, Im not interested in going back and overturning the Civil Rights Act. I think the best way forward is to find a way to respect the religious beliefs of our fellow citizens. Religious freedom acts have been passed on the state and federal levels, and I support them.

McAfee: Do you think atheists and other freethinker groups should be less confrontational when it comes to minor violations of separation of church and state? For instance, how would you react to a statute depicting the Ten Commandments placed on government property?

Petersen: Yes, I absolutely do. I roll my eyes at people who think we are somehow having some sort of victory because we removed In God We Trust from money when there are so many other substantive issues that actually affect peoples lives. However, if youre putting up any new religious monuments on public property, all religions or non-religions ought to have equal access to display theirs as well.

McAfee: I am not as concerned about who bakes cakes for whom as I am about religious freedom laws that actually kill children. If you dont know what I mean, Im talking about the handful of states with extreme religious freedom laws allowing parents to literally get away with murder when they use faith healing instead of medicine to treat their terminally ill children. One particularly notable case comes out of Idaho, where more children die due to faith-based neglect than anywhere else. What is your position on these laws, which give special treatment to religious people in a way we wouldnt tolerate if it were another country?

Petersen: The law of the land is the Constitution, and we are all governed by it. No other law is higher. Not Sharia, not the Old Testament, not the Tao Te Ching. No one has the right to harm anyone in the name of religion or in the name of non-religion, as the Communists did in the Soviet Union. I wouldnt be consistently pro-life if I didnt believe that the government had the right to intervene and protect children from being neglected.

McAfee: Personally, I see secularization as beneficial for religions (who dont want the government involved in their worship) as well as for people who dont want religious influences to run their state. Do you value separation of church and state, and recognize that our founders intended to keep these two entities apart for good reasons?

Petersen: Constitutionally, there is no technical separation of church and state. Rather, there is freedom from the establishment of a state religion. Originally, some founders thought this meant that the federal government could not establish a religion, but the states might. Since the Reconstruction Era amendments, however, this has shifted and now the states may not do so. And many state constitutions already have a clause similar to the federal governments.

I agree with James Madison, who wrote, We are teaching the world the great truth that governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government.

And my greatest inspiration on the issue, which I would have liked to have seen written word-for-word into the Constitution if it had been expedient, comes from Thomas Jeffersons Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom: Be it enactedthat no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion

McAfee: Separation of church and state is important to me, and many of my readers, but science issues are perhaps even more crucial. Do you accept the scientific consensus on things like the helpfulness of vaccines, evolution, and climate change influenced in part by humans?

Petersen: I certainly accept it on vaccines and evolution. I am agnostic on the issue of climate change, because climate science relies on predictions. Since predictions have generally the same accuracy rate as astrologers and psychics, I think we ought to get along with our business and avoid centralizing economic planning into the hands of a few self-interested bureaucrats in Washington D.C. If climate change is real, and it very well could be, then progress via industrial capitalism will be the solution. The cause is also the cure.

McAfee: You seem like a rational person. How much of a role do you give to science in your decision-making? Do you check peer-reviewed papers or rely on your instinct?

Petersen: I do check peer-reviewed papers. Im fully willing to change my mind when evidence conflicts with my worldview. Yes, I do have my ideas, but I try to avoid confirming my biases if at all possible. Im open-minded. I like being proven wrong, because even though your ego takes a blow, you learn something, and I love to keep learning and growing intellectually.

McAfee: I couldnt agree more on being proven wrong. Is there anything else youd like to add to this?

Petersen: Theres a reason that the First Amendment comes first. Being able to choose your own religion or choose to not have any religion at all! is a vital part of our inherent liberties as rational human beings. Im committed to preserving liberty above all else, and that includes protecting the freedom of an individuals conscience and intelligence on matters of belief. If elected, I will certainly do this and not only for people I agree with, but also (and especially) for those whose views differ from my own.

Overall, Petersen is an interesting candidate. I dont blame him for avoiding the word atheist, although its worth noting he has repeatedly called himself an atheist and has even called Christianity as the violent cousin of Islam and as the Cult of Christ. So, what do you all think? Would you vote for him?

See more here:
Meet the Atheist Libertarian Running for Senate as a Republican - Patheos (blog)